(Original post by Silcce)
Yeah, my insurance is De Montfort, but that was largely because this time last year, I really wanted it as my firm mostly because I didn't think I could get into Winchester, but then they offered me less points and I took it as an insurance, then I looked at the course modules and I don't really like them, plus I haven't been to see the university, so i'm like that get in to my firm. I know London is great for Media, but most of my friends are going to places like Hertfordshire for that. its not that far from London, but its far enough that they could live there but still come home often xD Do you have an ideal uni already?

Ah, I see... at least you have an insurance! Lots of people seem to be winging it with just the firm! Still, fingers crossed for you. That's a fair point actually, maybe I will suggest it if she likes the look of the modules!
Kind of, most of them are grade dependent though. If I somehow ace it, then I'd like to try for Cambridge, but it's not the be all and end all. Exeter and Leeds are also two highlights, but who knows. I might have to rethink everything pending Thursday!

(Original post by Pleonasm)
This is simply incorrect. You have read the independent article without actually thinking about its context.

Oxbridge and other top Universities are quoted in saying that they don't want AS-Levels to go. The main reason for this is simple; a large part of their admissions decisions are based off of AS-Level grades. GCSEs are terrible at distinguishing between the top ~25% of pupils in any subject and top Universities, given the choice, would never want the only results they receive upon the time application to be GCSEs.

Even if the Universities hold other reasons, the fact that this is an contributing factor does somewhat invalidate the decision to call upon their view in such a discussion. But obviously the newspaper is just going to skim over that to make their own article seem stronger and hope that most readers won't be able to read between the lines.

Quoting or referencing newspapers is rarely a good idea. (Though it could have been worse, it could have been the Daily Mail).

(Original post by JFA 95)
Disagree. He has said, time and time again, his primary aim is to compete with other countries, to try and make the UK some sort of educative beacon that can compete with the rising powers in Asia. It's competition, for potential investors, not a means to increase social mobility.

That's one of his aims - but the top of Britain already out-performs most countries, it's the bottom that leaves us behind. His general aims are to place more rigour in the education system. He wants everyone to have an education similar to that of the best private and state schools. He believes that by making exams harder, he will force state schools to up their game, making education in the state sector similar to that of the private. Why do you think he place Michael Wilshaw as HM's Chief Inspector? Wilshaw ran a state school like an independent one, with strict discipline and academic rigour, getting many children from a poor inner-city area into the best universities. He holds schools like Mossbourne up as examples of what he wants our education system to be like.

Innate (by which I assume you mean genetic) intelligence is still correlated with wealth, because intelligent people tend to earn more. They pass their genes onto their children, who are then more intelligent.

However, I do not personally think that genes account for significant amounts of intelligence.

(Original post by PythianLegume)
Rubbish. Wealth is highly correlated with intelligence, from the earliest ages. Before children start education, richer children are already about a year above their poorer peers.

That's not intelligence, raw intelligence is unique and random! However, the wealthier harness the intelligence and that's why.

I disagree that in nursery rich children are smarter.

They come off as more intelligent but the actual potential isn't correlated, but the final outcome is.

(Original post by Icedstoat)
I wouldn't say it's coincidental that wealth and intelligence are correlated, it's because the parents who earn a lot usually have good degrees and pass on their academic genes to their children.

I don't see why so many people see this as a problem

its simple wealth means you can afford a private school where you find one teacher teaching a relatively small group of students at a time. Whereas at a state school one teacher can be teaching up to thirty students. Therefore at state schools you don't get the opportunity of having a teacher go round to students one by on and giving you in depth help as there are too many students in a class. Whilst In a private school the teacher can spend lots of time with each student. I have been to both private and state schools however at private schools teachers will sit will sit with each student and literally write their course work for them. As a result even the not so bright at private will do well at GCSE'S AND A-levels. don't forget private tuition as well--money buys that.

(Original post by JFA 95)
Disagree. He has said, time and time again, his primary aim is to compete with other countries, to try and make the UK some sort of educative beacon that can compete with the rising powers in Asia. It's competition, for potential investors, not a means to increase social mobility.

Explain how the UK becomming an "educative beacon" to the rest of the world is a bad thing exactly.. ? To me, that seems like a good idea.

(Original post by PythianLegume)
That's one of his aims - but the top of Britain already out-performs most countries, it's the bottom that leaves us behind. His general aims are to place more rigour in the education system. He wants everyone to have an education similar to that of the best private and state schools. He believes that by making exams harder, he will force state schools to up their game, making education in the state sector similar to that of the private. Why do you think he place Michael Wilshaw as HM's Chief Inspector? Wilshaw ran a state school like an independent one, with strict discipline and academic rigour, getting many children from a poor inner-city area into the best universities. He holds schools like Mossbourne up as examples of what he wants our education system to be like.

You're clearly very knowledgeable on this subject!
Nevertheless, if Gove truly wanted to increase social mobility in the way you think he does, he would take into consideration the fact that these reforms coinciding with huge cuts to state schools is going to heavily affect performance of poorer schools.

You and I clearly have a different opinion on what direction these reforms should be taken (You, rigor and stricter examinations, me, work outside of examinations -alternative means of measurement, not that I know how, what, where etc), but I think the timing itself is pretty damaging, hence my belief that Gove is highly indifferent to how much state schools are suffering at this point in the deep dark depths of austerity.

(Original post by HarryMWilliams)
Explain how the UK becomming an "educative beacon" to the rest of the world is a bad thing exactly.. ? To me, that seems like a good idea.

I'm not suggesting that's bad, but first and foremost I believe the way in which Gove is setting out this master plan of his -competing with Asia - is wrong.
You only need to look at the Scandinavian countries who have less hours in school, less examinations, etc, to see that Gove is far, far too focused on standardised testing as a means of competing.

I also don't think, that at this point where huge cuts are being made and the gap between the rich and poor is widening, we are in any state to focus so heavily on international ranking in a way that students just become a series of numbers and statistics to be measured up against the very best in Asia and the Americas.

(Original post by L'Evil Fish)
That's not intelligence, raw intelligence is unique and random! However, the wealthier harness the intelligence and that's why.

I disagree that in nursery rich children are smarter.

'Raw intelligence' is a difficult principle to pin down.

You can't disagree - at nursery age, there is already a gap between rich and poor children - look up the evidence for this.

(Original post by JENG)
its simple wealth means you can afford a private school where you find one teacher teaching a relatively small group of students at a time. Whereas at a state school one teacher can be teaching up to thirty students. Therefore at state schools you don't get the opportunity of having a teacher go round to students one by on and giving you in depth help as there are too many students in a class. Whilst In a private school the teacher can spend lots of time with each student. I have been to both private and state schools however at private schools teachers will sit will sit with each student and literally write their course work for them. As a result even the not so bright at private will do well at GCSE'S AND A-levels. don't forget private tuition as well--money buys that.

That's not the most significant reason. Wealthy people do better regardless of their education, it's more to do with parental attitudes and how they bring up their children. Also, small class sizes are not, despite popular opinion, the reason private schools do well. Class sizes have relatively little effect on outcomes (see John Hattie's work for example).

(Original post by JamesTheCool)
They're not more intelligent than anyone else. What rubbish. That is the height of snobbery. You're mistaking intelligence with better-educated. The difference in educational output between kids who go to state schools and kids who go to private schools is a big one, that's why they seem more intelligent - they glisten with the sheen of an expensive, superlative education which most people can't access! Wealth has no correlation with intelligence. A good education is the result of dedication, not the speed of which someone can work out the square root of 1 million.

(Original post by Padouken)
Please don't intertwine my point of view with James'. I don't care what his views are and what he previously wrote, I just didn't agree with the point about pushy parents not being a problem. I'm not talking about parents that help their students find their aptitudes and then give full control over to them (with some firmness so that time isn't completely wasted); this isn't pushy. I'm talking about those parents with high expectations that don't let their children forget how much pressure lies on their schooling success, who do actually force textbooks and ridiculous study hours down their throats - because these kids won't perform to the best of their capabilities, despite how it may seem that they do because of A levels and how limited its ability to measure true success and aptitude.

I do agree pushy parents (as defined by you) are a pain. I just feel that even these kids will not perform well, if at the end of the day, they are not capable of doing so. These pushy parents are more of a case of people trying to get their kids to perform beyond their potential. Some may perform well because they have the potential. But this could create a problem when they don't have their pushy parents behind them at university not because they don't have the ability to perform it's because they were never instilled with the inner urge to perform to their potential.